Non-invasive studies that correlate with the gold standard 90% or more of the time are very good. Certainly these statistics compare very favorably with those of high quality non-invasive vascular laboratories across the country.

Impressive.

How did you find these people?

I'm not sure whether this is a binary test, or whether there is some value judgement made about the degree of disease, but this certainly seems to be the best, most cost effective option. Although I am now sure what "3 tests" means, if it means 3 tests is over time, then we might be able to evaluate a subject for less than $200 using this method including blood work.

Lets figure on 20 people. $4,000.

Vitamin C and lysine for 20 people for 1 month $100 * 20, or $2,000

So for $6,000 to $10,000 we can study 20 people.

For $3,000 to $5,000 we can study 10 people.

After I learn what you know about this service, I may try to contact them and see how we might enroll people and monitor results.

I participate in other health-related forums as well. The lead was provided by a member of one of these forums that has used their services in the past. She seems impressed by them and she's a pretty "tough customer". She mentioned the testing in relation to hormone replacement therapy and heart disease. Based on this, I Googled it and then looked over their site. In my area alone, they have several local testing locations.

That's all I know at the moment. If you think it would be helpful, I'd consider going in for some testing to check it out. I wouldn't be a good candidate for our proposed study because I've been using the Pauling Protocol for some time (though not always as consistantly as I should).

Once we are satisfied that this test can be used to measure improvlement, then, rather than a formal pilot study, we may offer inducements to people to have before and after screenings, while taking our products.

There are some number of people who find out about the Pauling therapy every day, who have not been taking more than the RDA of vitamin C, who are diagnosed with CVD, and who find us on the Internet. We might offer to pay for the initial screening, and if it meets certain criteria, to fund their one month purchase and a second screening. (Probably paid as a rebate once all their test results have been certified and forwarded to us.)

This would allow us to determine in an incremental manner whether people generally show results in one month. We ight have to extend the interval. The Life Screening people would be acting as an independent laboratory, and once we settle on an interval, we can analyze the results from a larger number of people, and perhaps decide to do a more formal study, perhaps in conjunction with a University.

By the way, we need to know more about this screening. If anyone signs up for this test, please contact me. In the meantime, i am going to ask some people I know to go through the screening so that we may evaluate it.

I'm sorry it's not going to work out, Owen. I was excited at the prospect and am disappointed as well.

I'll keep on the lookout for other options. Let's not give up on this. I think that, at the very least, the concept of the participants paying for the tests (or having their insurance cover them) and the foundation conditionally providing the supplements (with a rebate - if the tests are performed) is a good and practical model.

It does sound a lot like Willis' Serial Arteriography. I wonder what the cost of such a procedure would be? I suppose we could probably determine that once we can assign a name to it. I'm concerned that it may be rather steep because of the invasive nature of it. I hope I'm wrong.

On the other-hand, I found this description of an angiogram this afternoon (below) and it could very be the test the gentleman was referring to.

The most common way to see if someone had clogged arteries is a standard angiogram, which uses a standard X-ray.

The doctor uses a catheter to inject a chemical called a contrast agent that makes the arteries easier to image, and this process can cause side effects as it involves punching a hole in an artery.

By the way, this is taken from an interesting article about the potential damage of such x-rays (and more specifically, CT scans) - due to the radiation exposure. This is, in part, why I'd prefer to find an alternative testing procedure.

I wonder, are we overlooking some remarkably simple way to measure the same thing?

I've noticed that patients often report that before C/lysine, they couldn't walk across the room, but after 30 days, they report painting their homes.

Can we invent a 30 second exertion test? Measure an increased ability to do work. Such a measure might be more valuable than knowing arterial diameter.

Owen,

I'm all for trying to find some simple, objective tests. Here's my first "what if" ...

If we invented an exertion test (or utilized a known test), how would we control for the placebo effect? Would we divide our group up (10 subjects taking the Pauling Protocol and 10 receiving a placebo, for instance) and get a baseline measurement and then require that they do a follow-up test after a certain period of time?

What if we improvised a gentler/simplified version of a Stress-Test? We could have the participants walk on a treadmill at a certain pace (and possibly an incline) that would make them feel out-of-breath or exhausted in say 15 minutes or so (as an example). Then, when they're retested (perhaps in a month or two), we can see if their stamina has improved by the change (or lack thereof) in the amount of time they can manage.

In addition to this, we could still run the blood tests, measure blood pressure and pulse. We could also possibly add the questionaire that we discussed earlier in this thread.

What do you think of this? Even if you think it's not appropriate ... I hope it might spark a better thought.

Any test should not require a lot of time, should not put the patient in any danger, and should be an indicator of improved heart function. It is our understanding that for many people, according to reports we get, many heart patients have difficulty walking across the room.

Placebo effect is not too hard to account for. What ever test we choose, we can monitor for as long as we like. With an appropriate placebo, we could begin giving it at some point, and substitute the real product at some unknown point. The subject would not know when they began the real product.

But the question is what test is appropriate. Perhaps squeezing some handgrip, the pressure and number of squeezes?

Or maybe simply holding the arms straight out to the side, and measuring
the point to first pain (in seconds) and total duration?

The question is, what if the subject improves from say 15 to 25 squeezes, does that imply improved heart function?

One confustion is that stamina is dependent multiple factors, including muscle function, the ability of the blood to deliver oxygen, but also how rested the muscles are. A person can have more stamina when well rested, etc.

The test really should induce an exertion to the point the body requires more oxygen, but then we face the issue of danger, increased risk of heart attack. Sigh.

What if we combined a number of less-than-ideal tests? The idea would be this: We utilize (as an example):

a. the CardioVision test (the primary flaw being that it mostly measures calcium deposits)

b. the Life Line screening (many flaws, but the ultrasound will give us some idea of the general amount of blockage that is present in the carotid artery - therefore, if there is an improvement, say from "high-risk" to "low-risk", then that is at least some objective measure of a positive change in plaque regression)

c. the basic bloodwork and Lp(a) test

d. a questionaire and/or a safe "performance" test - if we can think of one/some

The net-result would be several (less-than-perfect) pieces of a puzzle. When we put them all together, we may not get a masterpiece but we might just get a worthwhile picture that tells us if we're making progress or not (in terms of blood-flow improvement/plaque regression).

In such a model, we could employ a placebo which would further strengthen the validity of the results.

If we restricted ourselves to just Carotid arteries, then this is probably the way to go. But the Life Line screening made me uneasy after the call. I am not sure it is worth spending the money for such a gross (low/medium/high) reading.

I don't know how much it would cost to screen people for carotid artery disease.

I think the answer is to find a doctor or chiropractor who already owns CardioVision, or who is willing to become checked out, and who has a number of CVD patients. We could work with such a physician and explore various measures in addition to Cardio-Vision and Lp(a).

ofonorow wrote:If we restricted ourselves to just Carotid arteries, then this is probably the way to go. But the Life Line screening made me uneasy after the call. I am not sure it is worth spending the money for such a gross (low/medium/high) reading.

I think the answer is to find a doctor or chiropractor who already owns CardioVision, or who is willing to become checked out, and who has a number of CVD patients. We could work with such a physician and explore various measures in addition to Cardio-Vision and Lp(a).

Do you know of such a physician? I posted a link (earlier in this thread) to a doctor in San Diego who offers the Cardio-Vision for $25. I don't know anything other than what his website states about him though - no personal knowledge.

Regarding the Life Line carotid artery test. I proposed that (as a part of a larger picture) because, presumably, if the C/Lysine can clear the plaque from coronary arteries ... it should do the same for the carotid arteries as well.

I wonder if Dr. Julian Whitaker might be willing to offer his services? I think he has a rather large practice so perhaps he has access to such technology. I wonder if any of the Vitamin C Foundation docs might be willing to participate?

BTW, I corresponded with a group who are big proponents of oral chelation. On their site, they mention that they have used "cardiac ultrasound" to verify the artery-clearing effects of that technology. I thought it might be helpful to know what others are using to monitor the success (or lack thereof) of other therapies.